Some Phillies Links For You, October 14, 2010: Pat the Bat Comes Back, Timmy Blisters, Bonds is Sweet

I should have explained further. Now keep in mind I’m not much of a math guy, so this will be somewhat anecdotal on my end (and therefore I’m sure this will get shot down pretty quickly), but this is how I read the article and why it does make sense to me:

The short answer is that what we’re talking about is zero sum: Lee, Wilson and Lewis are throwing two out of the seven games (apiece), and if you assume that Lee gives you a better chance than the other two then you have to weaken yourself somewhere (by not starting Lee) to gain an advantage elsewhere.

Longer Answer: Let’s assume for a second that the Rangers’ performance against Sabathia would be the same regardless of who’s pitching for the Rangers(and the same for Hughes). This is almost certainly reasonable given that you’d put out the same lineup for either event thanks to the DH rule. In the NL, this is less cut and dry due to the strategy that needs to be employed in the later innings of a close ballgame.

It’s also reasonable to assume that teams don’t change their offensive philosophies unless they’re a) ahead by a number of runs or b) behind by a number of runs. A team ahead by one run or behind by one are going to try and score more runs using whatever means they have at their disposal (patience, power, speed, etc.) – one to erase the deficit, the other to pad the lead. In the event of a blowout you might see teams let up (specifically with regards to taking/stealing an extra base), but by that point it doesn’t matter who the opposing pitcher is. A team that gives up ten runs is almost certainly going to lose to a good playoff starter (which Sabathia/Pettitte/Lee are and Hughes/Wilson/Lewis may well be).

So if we assume that the same lineup will perform a similar (if not completely the same) way during a close game, then we can assume that the offense is a likely constant regardless of who is pitching for the Rangers.

If that’s the case, the variable is the choice of Rangers starter. You won’t find anyone who doesn’t believe that the Rangers aren’t more likely to win Game 1 with Lee on the mound. With Lee it’s a tossup, without him the Yankees are favored. But what that implies is that the Rangers are stronger with Lee on the mound regardless of the situation. Because of that, their chances to win go up when he pitches and go down when he doesn’t. The advantage you lose in Game 1 transfers to Game 3, and from Game 5 to Game 7. Why? Because just like the Rangers offense above, the Yankees are going to put out the same lineup for Lee whether he goes in Game 1 or in Game 3, and they’re going to take a similar approach regardless of what happened the two previous games.

Therefore, in order to argue that there’s an advantage to pitching Lee in 1/5 instead of 3/7, the argument has to center around the idea that creating four tossup matches (Sabathia/Lee and Hughes/Lewis) is better than having two games with an advantage (Lee/Hughes) and two without (Wilson/Sabathia).

Again, it’d be different if there was an expectation that Lee could pitch three times in the series (1,4,7), but that expectation doesn’t exist. The Rangers have to win at least two games not started by Cliff Lee to advance no matter when he pitches. Whether you want the four coinflips or the two sure things, that math doesn’t change.

This is just my reasoning anyway, I could well be wrong.